MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2174526383 · doi:10.1590/2176-457324398

A bisbilhotice na pintura

2015· article· pt· W2174526383 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony Wall

Bibliographic record

VenueBakhtiniana Revista de Estudos do Discurso · 2015
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Education Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RESUMO Este artigo defende que os princípios dialógicos do discurso são aplicáveis tanto a linguagens verbais como a linguagens icônicas, já que compartilham certas funções, como a importantíssima função metalinguística. O artigo estuda detalhadamente, por uma perspectiva bakhtiniana, uma série de seis pinturas criadas pelo artista holandês do Século XVII Nicolaes Maes (1634-1693). Cada pintura representa poses e gestos diferentes de um bisbilhoteiro, de tal maneira que o analista-observador bakhtiniano é obrigado a ver como a pintura desse tipo curioso combina de maneiras surpreendentes linguagens verbais e visuais. As telas de bisbilhoteiros de Maes concernem à curiosidade, reunindo personagens que poderiam ter preferido permanecer independentes umas das outras. As telas apresentam códigos gestuais, corporais, linguísticos e cromáticos, fazendo o material visual funcionar criativamente e permitindo que cada linguagem se beneficie das vantagens expressivas das outras. Combinam-se aí várias perspectivas para mostrar que as capacidades expressivas de toda linguagem dada são necessariamente mais pobres quando recorrem a um único meio. Uma perspectiva bakhtiniana pode derramar nova luz sobre as pinturas de Nicolaes Maes, ao mesmo tempo em que a análise ilumina novas possibilidades semânticas no pensamento de Bakhtin.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBakhtiniana Revista de Estudos do DiscursoSame topicLinguistics and Education ResearchFrench-language works237,207